Well, the Tudors got the hunchback part right (c'mon, who in the 15th Century wouldn't have called that a hunchback).

For those slow on the news: RIchard III, a/k/a the Evil King in the Shakespeare canon (i.e. murderer of the Princes in the Tower, still unproven), has been identified and dug up out of a car park that overlays the ancient (and demolished) Greyfriars Monastery in Leicester, England where he was unceremoniously dumped after having the bad luck to get killed at Bosworth Field and, through his death, allow the establishment of the Tudor Dynasty. Given the chunks out of his skull, he went down hard.

I think my first exposure to the myth of Richard III was the the Neil Simon movie "Goodbye Girl", where Richard Dreyfuss was trying to figure out how to play Richard III while simultaneously trying to figure out his new female roommate. There might have been other important bits but I was too young, white, & nerdy to catch on way back then.

And yes, old English history stuff like this just gets me.

Never ask a woman who is eating ice cream straight from the carton how she's doing.

Alas, it is a bit easier for an actor to sport a withered arm than a twisted spine. And -- news flash -- the other plays have their anachronisms and historical inaccuracies (and in some cases deliberately misleading portrayals) also. Expecting to learn history from Shakespeare is like expecting to learn physics from Star Wars. That's not what it's for.

If you want to see an interesting cinematic version of "Richard III," look for the 1995 one starring Ian McKellen. It's set in an alternative 1930s Britain where fascism got the upper hand; the style is art deco, the combat is modern, but Shakespeare's dialog is almost entirely intact.

(As for the discovery: not surprisingly, the BBC coverage has been quite good; I look forward to the inevitable documentary).

Alas, it is a bit easier for an actor to sport a withered arm than a twisted spine. And -- news flash -- the other plays have their anachronisms and historical inaccuracies (and in some cases deliberately misleading portrayals) also. Expecting to learn history from Shakespeare is like expecting to learn physics from Star Wars. That's not what it's for.

When you're writing plays for the approval of Good Queen Bess the First, one accepts the Royal revisions and keeps one's festering gob shut.

I've seen the McKellen fascist version and I don't like.

Never ask a woman who is eating ice cream straight from the carton how she's doing.

When you're writing plays for the approval of Good Queen Bess the First, one accepts the Royal revisions and keeps one's festering gob shut.

Indeed. And on that note, I recommend the play “Equivocation” by Bill Cain.

I've seen the McKellen fascist version and I don't like.

Any movie that features a de Havilland Dragon Rapide is going to be a favorite of mine. But I'm a sucker for stylized, modernized Shakespeare: I quite enjoyed the Luhrmann "Romeo + Juliet" even though I'm not really a fan of either of the two lead actors. I even liked "Scotland PA" (though anything that features Christopher Walken already has a finger on the scale)

I enjoy it as well. Speaking of The Tudors, as dramatized as that TV series was, its constant allusions to historical occurrences encouraged me to look them up and read about them. I know a fair bit more about that period of history as a result.